Duarte, Ryan v. New Bedford, City of - Office of The City Solicitor (SPR 20260252)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records February 9, 2026 SPR26/0252 Katherine Schuko, Esq. Assistant City Solicitor City of New Bedford 133 William Street New Bedford, MA 02740 Dear Attorney Schuko: I have received the petition of Ryan Duarte appealing the response of the City of New Bedford (City) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On November 26, 2025, Mr. Duarte requested the following: . . . The official narrative and supplemental reports [concerning an identified August 25, 2015 incident] list the following sworn [New Bedford Police Department] officers as involved: . . . [1] [An identified] Officer . . . - primary narrative author[;] [2] [An identified] Officer . . . - stop, detention, suspect designation[;] [3] [An identified] Officer . . . - Use of Force Report[;] [4] [An identified] Officer . . . - vehicle search / observations[;] [5] [An identified] Officer . . . - vehicle observations[;] [6] [An identified] Lt. . . . (referenced in related filings)[;] [7] [An identified] Officer . . . (involved in related dispatch and Fl reports)[;] [8] Any officer listed in CAD logs, PT-1 transport logs, or supplemental reports for [an identified incident number][.] . . . For each of the above officers, I request certified copies (or electronic copies) of the following: [1] Surety Bond / Official Documentation [a] Any surety bond, fidelity bond, blanket bond, liability bond, or insurance instrument required as a condition of holding office or employment; [b] The issuing carrier/company, bond number, amount, coverage One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0252 Page 2 February 9, 2026 summary, and effective dates; [c] Proof of filing of the bond with the City Clerk per M.G.L. c. 41[;] [2] Sworn Oath of Office [a] The officer’s signed and executed oath of office pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41, §18 and any related filing or certification documents; [b] Date sworn, administering official, and copy of the recorded oath; [c] Name/title of the administering authority[;] [d] Filing certification (City Clerk or NBPD)[;] [3] Filing Certifications [a] The record custodian confirming where the oath and bond are legally filed and maintained[;] [b] Any change of status, suspensions, or lapse periods . . .[;] [4] Disciplinary Records / Internal Affairs Files . . . [a] All sustained, unsustained, pending, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded disciplinary complaints[;] [b] All citizen complaints, internal complaints, and administrative investigations[;] [c] Any disciplinary actions, reprimands, suspensions, counseling memos, or findings[;] [d] Any Professional Standards Division investigative reports[;] [e] Any Brady/Giglio disclosures or credibility-related findings[;] This request includes, but is not limited to, files maintained under: Internal Affairs/ Professional Standards[,] Early Warning Systems[,] Supervisor Reviews[,] Complaint Registers[,] Disciplinary Notifications to POST Commission (M.G.L. c. 6E)[,] [and] Any documents submitted to or received from the Massachusetts POST Commission regarding these officers[;] [5] Training & Certification. . . [a] POST certification status[;] [b] Use-of-force training records[;] [c] Any decertifications, suspensions, or pending matters . . .[.] Previous Appeal This request was the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/3776 Determination of the Supervisor of Records (January 8, 2026). In my January 8th determination, I ordered the City to revise its December 22, 2025 fee estimate or provide further explanation of how the fee estimate of $437.50 is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The City responded on January 23, 2026, clarifying its fee estimate. Unsatisfied with the City’s response, Mr. Duarte petitioned this office and this appeal, SPR26/0252, was opened as a result.

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0252 Page 3 February 9, 2026 Fee Estimates – Municipalities A municipality may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record except those records that are freely available for public inspection. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d). The fees must reflect the actual cost of complying with a particular request. Id. A maximum fee of five cents ($.05) per page may be assessed for a black and white single or double-sided photocopy of a public record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(i). Municipalities may not assess a fee for the first 2 (two) hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the record or records requested unless the municipality has 20,000 people or less. G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii). Where appropriate, municipalities may include as part of the fee an hourly rate equal to or less than the hourly rate attributed to the lowest paid employee who has the necessary skill required to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce a record requested, but the fee shall not be more than $25 per hour. Id. However, municipalities may charge more than $25 per hour if such rate is approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). A fee shall not be assessed for time spent segregating or redacting records unless such segregation or redaction is required by law or approved by the Supervisor of Records under a petition under G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iv). See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(iii); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(4). The City’s December 22nd and January 23rd Responses In its December 22, 2025 response, the City explained that it would require a total of 17.5 hours to produce the responsive records and that it would charge a rate of $25 per hour, which is less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee with the necessary skills to perform the required tasks. The City additionally provided the following in support of its fee estimate: [2] Sworn Oath of Office. The Department estimate [sic] it will take 30 minutes per officer to locate the personnel file, find the oath, copy or scan the document, return the document to the file and return the file to the location where it is stored. Please note, some officers are no longer with the Department, and their personnel files are contained in boxes in a storage area. Total amount of time to search and compile the requested records is 3.5 hours [210 minutes (30 minutes x 7 officers)]. . . . [4] Disciplinary Records/Internal Affairs. Before providing you with the records for each officer listed in your request, the City is required to segregate and redact the record in accordance with G.L. c. 4, § 7(26)(a). . . . The City anticipates segregating and redacting the following information from the record pursuant to the following statutes— In support of its fee estimate, the City provided the following information: [a] Registry of Motor Vehicle Information (such as license plate numbers and registration information) pursuant to the Driver’s Privacy Protection

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0252 Page 4 February 9, 2026 Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721. [b] Personal Information (such as a resident’s first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with a driver’s license number or state issued identification card number) pursuant to G.L. c. 93H, § 1. [c] Medical conditions and/or treatment of a specifically named individual pursuant to HIPAA, 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a)(1). The City anticipates that it will take approximately ten hours (600 minutes) to fulfill your request. This time estimate includes search, compile, segregation and redaction time (in accordance with the above cited authority) and is based on how the requested records are kept, the City’s experience fulfilling similar records requests, and a precursory review of the potentially responsive records. . . . [5] Training & Certification. . . . The Department estimates it will take four hours (240 minutes) to locate the Use of Force trainings and suspension information, copy or scan the document, return the document to the file and return the file to the location where it is stored. As outlined by the Massachusetts Public Records Law, municipalities may not assess a fee for the first two hours of personnel time taken to search for, compile, redact, or reproduce the record(s) requested unless said municipality is comprised of 20,000 people or less. In compiling this estimate the City has already spent 2 hours of time at no charge. The City . . . has a population of more than 20,000 individuals. Therefore, the City is seeking payment for 17.5 hours [(1050 minutes / 60 minutes)]. . . . Therefore, the City is seeking payment of (17.5 hours) * ($25.00/hour) = $437.50. In its January 23, 2026 response, the City provided further explanation of its fee estimate as follows: Upon receipt of your request, the City performed two hours of precursory search and compile time in processing the records for your request thus far. For example, regarding one category of the requested records “all citizen complaints, internal complaints, and administrative investigations,” the City identified 27 complaints potentially responsive to your request, some dating back to 1999. In performing this initial work, the City also identified the records it did not have, identified the records that were publicly available, and identified more time was required to process your request due to its scope and the volume of potentially responsive records identified thus far, as captured in the City’s December 22nd response. Therefore, the City provided you with a good-faith fee estimate setting forth the remaining anticipated employee time required…

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0252 Page 5 February 9, 2026 To clarify, the City’s estimate of 17.5 hours at $25.00 an hour for a total of $437.50 captures the total remaining employee time anticipated to fulfill your multi-part request. This time includes the total search and compile time remaining, and segregation and redaction time, where required by law. Based on the City’s experience fulfilling similar records requests and the precursory review thus far, the City anticipates segregation and redaction time being required in accordance with the cited statutes in the City’s December 22nd response. However, the City will not know all of the information requiring redaction by law until the work is completed. As indicated in the City’s December 22nd response, the brunt of the segregation and redaction time is anticipated to be spent on the disciplinary/internal affair records. The City’s estimate is consistent with G. L. c. 66, § 10(d), and is already adjusted for the two hours of free time required pursuant to the public records law, as noted above. To further clarify, the first two hours was not expanded compiling a fee estimate; it was to begin searching for, compiling, and reviewing the documents and the files for your response… It is the breadth of your request and the volume of potentially responsive records identified based on your search terms, rather than how the records are kept, that has resulted in the estimated 17.5 hours of remaining work… The City’s good-faith fee estimate complies with public records law and reflects the scope of your request. Current Appeal In his appeal petition, Mr. Duarte argued, “…the City’s response does not cure the deficiencies identified in your January 8, 2026 determination.” Fee Waivers G. L. c. 66, § 10(d)(v) provides the following with respect to waiving a fee for the production of responsive records: the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee charged under this subsection upon a showing that disclosure of a requested record is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor, or upon a showing that the requestor lacks the financial ability to pay the full amount of the reasonable fee. Please be advised, although the Supervisor may encourage fees to be waived, the Supervisor may not mandate that a records access officer waive fees assessed for complying with a public records request; rather, as described above, the records access officer may waive or reduce the amount of any fee upon a showing of various factors. See G. L. c. 66, § 10 (d)(v); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2)(k).

Katherine Schuko, Esq. SPR26/0252 Page 6 February 9, 2026 Reasonableness of the Fee Estimate Based on the City’s response, the City has sufficiently explained the amount of time it requires to locate, segregate, and redact the responsive records as required by law, and has confirmed that an hourly rate of $25.00 is equal to or less than the hourly rate of the lowest paid individual with the skill necessary to perform those tasks. Further, the City has also confirmed that it is not assessing a fee for the first two hours of employee time to search for, compile, segregate, redact or reproduce the records requested. Consequently, I find that the City has met its burden to establish that it would take this amount of time to produce the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(d) (a records access officer may assess a reasonable fee for the production of a public record). This office encourages Mr. Duarte and the City to communicate to facilitate providing records more efficiently and affordably. Mr. Duarte may wish to narrow his request. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vii) (a municipality shall suggest a reasonable modification of the scope of the request or offer to assist the requestor to modify the scope of the request if doing so would enable the municipality to produce the records sought more efficiently and affordably). Any revision to the request would result in the requirement to issue a revised fee estimate. Conclusion Accordingly, I will now consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Duarte is not satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A(c) (pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of applicable judicial remedies). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Ryan Duarte Lisa A. Presby